Yves-François Blanchet
Beloeil—Chambly, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s, today's Quebeckers were French Canadians who worked for the English. With the Quiet Revolution, which was also an economic revolution, the Quebec nation was created, along with a class of full-fledged Quebec entrepreneurs.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least he prepares his answers. That is $3.4 billion that will be lost in the creative sector in Quebec and Canada. The minister is going to invest $600 million that he is taking directly out of taxpayers' pockets.”
“Mr. Speaker, this time it is clear. The Prime Minister is abandoning the cultural sector in the face of American digital giants. Not only is he capitulating on the levy increase demanded from streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, and Disney, but we also found out that he will require the CRTC to cancel every last bit of funding for Que…”
“Mr. Speaker, we predicted his appointment would be a disaster, and it is. The Prime Minister is once again abandoning Quebec culture because of Washington. The Union des artistes and the entire cultural community spoke out against it in the media on Saturday.”
“For example, he has donated or raised close to $2 million for good causes in his region, in the area around Châteauguay. Let us applaud the great generosity and business acumen of a Quebec builder. Every region of Quebec should have somebody like him. I want to thank Mr. Thibert. The best is yet to come.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister previously abandoned the digital services tax without any concessions from Washington; there was nothing at all. As a result, he deprived the cultural sector of $1.4 billion. Today, he is asking the CRTC to backtrack on the 15% levy imposed on large online streaming platforms.”
The complete record
Every one of 300 lines we hold for Yves-François Blanchet, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, we could get a plaque with that phrase etched onto it. In short, the Prime Minister eliminated the carbon tax and gave Canadians $4 billion up front to reimburse them for a tax that they will never pay. Meanwhile, he gave nothing to Quebeckers. He admitted it. That $4 billion is not linked to any revenue that would justify that money being paid back. That $4 billion is being added directly to the deficit, just like the $6 billion in tax cuts. The government is doing all of this without tabling a budget or providing an economic update. Will the Prime Minister fix this obvious injustice against Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the votes in the House determine what we agree on. The matter remained under the radar during the turmoil of the election campaign, but it is now becoming a big issue in Quebec. The truth needs to come out. By refusing to compensate Quebeckers, the government is providing a carbon rebate to those who did not pay for it and failing to reimburse those who did. I assume the Prime Minister is better than that at economics and basic accounting. Will he compensate Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Mirabel asked the Minister of Finance the following: “Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of the election...in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?” The minister said no. My question for the Prime Minister is this. Were the carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of the election delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to explain, because I was the one who implemented the carbon pricing that has been in effect in Quebec since 2013, when I was minister of the environment. The Prime Minister clearly has an easier time with numbers than with facts. Will he pay Quebeckers back the $814 million he owes them?”
“Mr. Speaker, that makes absolutely no sense. Those who pay should get a rebate, not those who do not pay. It has been clearly established that this has nothing to do with a carbon tax he abolished—a move the OECD criticized—and we all know it was a vote-getting gift and an injustice, so will he acknowledge that the $3.7 billion Canadians received has nothing to do with climate change?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope you are sitting comfortably, because this is kind of complicated. The Prime Minister gave Canadians a refund for money they did not pay. It was actually an advance, but they will never pay back that advance. Nearly $4 billion was distributed to Canadians one week before the election, but Quebeckers did not get a penny. Can the Prime Minister explain that to Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the people we spoke to from the industries in question have not heard of any kind of support. However, we have put forward a wage subsidy plan similar to what was done during the pandemic. The aim is to help businesses retain their workforce and preserve expertise. This is a major concern for employers. Tens of thousands of jobs in companies and their subcontractors are at risk. Is the Prime Minister prepared to quickly implement a wage subsidy program for businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, his ministers responded to similar questions by describing what was on their agenda and who they were meeting with. The government was elected because there was a crisis. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister said, “No crisis, no [name of Prime Minister]”. It is not about trying to negotiate with the Americans, even though that is necessary. It is about providing immediate and meaningful help to businesses in the steel and aluminum sector. What are you doing?”
“Mr. Speaker, “a grasshopper gay sang the summer away, and found herself poor by the winter's first roar.” Since the election, the government has been dreaming of a bill on major projects of national significance, as reported in Le Devoir. Meanwhile, one thing nobody has mentioned since the election is that President Trump is doubling tariffs on aluminum and steel, threatening tens of thousands of jobs. What is the government going to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, very little was actually said, but I believe I heard about one demand that I would support. Will the Prime Minister make a formal commitment to respect the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec's jurisdiction if the Hudson Bay project does not work out and to respect the BAPE's timelines?”
“Mr. Speaker, the last big love-in like this took place in Quebec with a lot of people, and then we got shafted. We remember that. At the extremes of ideology, I never thought I would see Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Smith meet in the land of unicorns. Have we considered the cost of the icebreakers and the transport needed to go the long way around via Ungava Bay and of finding a market in Europe? Are there any refineries in Europe capable of refining crude oil from western Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am curious about something. There was basically a love-in yesterday in Saskatoon. However, there are stages to a love-in. I wonder what happens next. During that love-in, there was an interesting proposal to build a pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta, not to Saint John, New Brunswick, via Quebec, but directly to Hudson Bay. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks of this odd project.”
“Following an election campaign that exploited Quebeckers' fears, “don't be afraid” takes on a meaning that not even he had anticipated. On the day after the 10th anniversary of his passing, I wish to express my deep admiration and gratitude for the man we knew as “Monsieur”.”
“Mr. Speaker, “Don't be afraid”. In my mind I can still hear the voice of my former boss, my very first real boss, say those words. My first foray into politics happened back in early November 1987, the day after René Lévesque's death, when I naively called for Jacques Parizeau's return in a letter published in Le Devoir. A few months later, I was put in charge of the Parti Québécois's youth wing. I lived through experiences at the time whose full historical impact on the very fabric of the nation only became clear much later on. Jacques Parizeau's life fills entire pages of Quebec's history. He was the architect of a great economy, of a great nation that finally took control of its economy barely half a century later.”
“This bill is extremely important to the economic model in Quebec's regions and many Canadian regions as well, and it deserves our urgent attention. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑202. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑202, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) . He said: Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, all of the political parties supported a bill aimed at protecting the entire supply management system, which then protects the interests of both consumers and producers in terms of quality and financial predictability. As I promised during the election campaign, I am introducing a similar bill this morning. Once again, I note that all of the political parties in the House have indicated that they will support this initiative. I therefore hope that we can move forward quickly, with the support of all members.”
“Mr. Speaker, people do not change. I did not miss that. Simply writing a word down does not make it a policy. Imagine someone trying to read a book. There would be a lot of policies in there. The throne speech includes the words “protect supply management”. I spent a lot of time explaining how that is clearly incomplete. The word “Radio‑Canada” alone does not constitute a policy. We cannot simply level criticisms at the government. However, I would appeal to those who are in a better position to make decisions. Not everything we say should be seen as a criticism, but the fact that the government has included a word in a document does not mean that it has made a fundamental commitment to the future of the nation. That is not how it works.”
“When it is clear that something different needs to happen with certain individuals, strong measures need to be taken. We need to ensure that one fundamental right of citizens acting in good faith is fully respected, and that is the right to feel safe and to actually be safe in our streets and in our schools.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we will always agree with the Conservatives on how to go about this. We still believe that someone should be removed from society for preventive purposes when necessary. Preventive action is a must, but there seems to be a certain amount of negligence with regard to crime and the root causes of crime. Our weak response to crime is concerning. I am approaching this issue from the perspective of young families. I am thinking of people who have children and fear that their children, once they start school, will be bullied or become bullies. It is worse in high school. There is a fear of bullying, violence, and a culture of violence that takes up far too much space. That is where we need to start taking action.”
“An SME economy based on regional resources that are processed as much as possible is inherently different. I really made a point of saying all that during the campaign. Now, instead of having five weeks with relatively little space, I have four years with a larger space, which I will fully occupy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will take the part of the question that speaks to me the most. Quebec's economy is vastly different from the Canadian economy. Just over 60 years ago, we were French Canadians on English Canada's payroll. A bit more than 60 years have gone by since René Lévesque's defining act, the nationalization of electricity. This was the first powerful economic tool belonging to Quebeckers, and it became an ecological model. Today, thanks to geography—we are not inherently more virtuous—in Quebec we are able to reconcile economic development with clean energy. Canada is stuck on the environmental lie that the future of Canada is an east-west oil economy. Not a single serious economist thinks that. Trade in North America is done between the north and the south and there are attempts to export to other places.”
“Mr. Speaker, although the member claims to have been listening carefully, I get the impression that she was not paying attention. I already miss the former member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. The answer can basically be found in the last sentence. It refers to the Canadian government doing what it wants to do while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and institutions. We will not have much of an issue with that. I realize that that nullifies 80% of the throne speech. If it is done in accordance with their Constitution—mine would have only the word “Quebec” written on it—if it is done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and institutions, such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the BAPE, for example, we will not have any issues. We can settle this through serious conversations amongst people who listen to one another.”
“I do not in any way want us to give up something that is good for them and that is presumably good for Canada and definitely good for Quebec. Even if the end goal is laudable, before we make any dogmatic or electioneering statements about cuts in that regard, we need to have discussions about how to go about that without hurting these people, their savings—to a certain extent—and the economic needs of Quebec and Canadian businesses.”
“I mentioned the intake of asylum seekers, even though I think that we have a duty in this regard. Every province should take a number proportional to its population. When it comes to foreign students, claiming refugee protection has become a way of getting around the rules, so we need to find a solution to that problem. There are also issues in the case of temporary foreign workers. There are temporary foreign workers who end up being not so temporary, whose permits are renewed again and again and who end up settling here, which creates problems with integration and breaks down the social fabric. I am not blaming anyone for that because we are responsible for our own system. The responsibility does not lie with those who want to benefit from it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of temporary immigration is quite complex. In my mind, the intention is always virtuous, or could be. However, it can sometimes be exploited for very questionable purposes. In the case of asylum seekers, for example, it is a humanitarian issue. We have a responsibility there. However, Quebec is overburdened for the time being. When it comes to foreign students, it is essential for them and often for their countries, but it is also essential for Quebec's university network, for example. In the case of temporary foreign workers, temporary immigration is essential for several economic sectors, particularly in the regions. Now, there is no denying that there are problems with each of these three types of temporary immigration.”
“As a test of good faith, I propose an amendment to the Conservative amendment to the Speech from the Throne: Amendment to the amendment That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, with respect for the areas of jurisdiction and the institutions of Quebec and the provinces””
“We will agree or we will use what Quebeckers gave us, for now, namely the balance of power in the committees. Here, given the makeup of Parliament, we have a certain weight. In every committee chaired by the Liberals, if the Liberals do not agree with the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois will have the votes that make the difference. Generally speaking, if they agree, that is not good news for Quebec. We will have to negotiate. I want to repeat in good faith that we are prepared to negotiate and find common ground. Either we will agree before being compelled to use the balance of power, or we will agree afterward, because things might get heated in committee.”
“We promised to start from how Canada sees itself and how Quebec sees itself, but we do not have a monopoly on how Quebec sees itself. We are going to argue over which group is bigger, but the Quebec National Assembly has made it very clear that its members are all Quebeckers. It is the only assembly that speaks only for Quebec. That matters, and we need to listen to them. There are differences because other people will come at things from Canada's perspective and we will come at things from Quebec's perspective. There will always be issues around language, values, the immigration model, small and medium-sized businesses, and the environment. We will do everything we can to get along, because Quebeckers will be watching and we will speak on their behalf.”
“There is no mention of this, aside from the words “supply management”. We will come back to that. The principle of supply management was never at stake, but parts of it were eliminated. It is like telling someone that they are not going to take their house away, but that they are taking their garage, and tomorrow they will come and take their bedroom, and then the kitchen. It will still be their house, but all they will have left is the foundation and basement. That is more or less what is happening. (1645) That is what needs to be protected in full, but I think we need a test to prove that we can work this out together. That is why I asked earlier about what happened to the crisis. Nevertheless, we listened to Quebeckers, and we promised to try very hard to collaborate, to find a way forward and as much common ground as possible.”
“There is the wage subsidy, which is loosely based on the COVID‑19 model, research and technology transfers for businesses to make them more competitive, and market diversification. I went to Europe and talked about market diversification with representatives of European countries. There is purchasing power, especially for retirees, productivity, reserving of public contracts, which could have been done many years ago, support for small and medium-sized businesses, the military sector, public contracts and maintaining purchasing power. I cannot believe that I know more about economics than the new high priest does. I am an anthropologist. However, we presented a number of solutions. I was very involved in creating these solutions so that they could be discussed and debated.”
“There is no economic update or budget, and yet we are supposed to go on believing that we have not been taken for a ride. Recognition of Quebec's distinct character is another issue. I would remind the House that we spent the election campaign talking about eight sectors which, although not exclusive to the Quebec economy, are specific to it. These are aluminum, critical minerals, supply management, aerospace, forestry, clean energy and culture. Quebec's culture is very different, and it is not being swallowed up by another culture. In any case, we are better at resisting, and the other is not the same other. There are also the fisheries. We discussed a range of solutions. It is unbelievable. The word “solutions” is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, except in very broad and vague principles.”
“The Minister of Finance said there would be an economic update in the fall and a budget next spring. The Prime Minister said there would be a budget this fall instead. Since the tax cuts cannot take effect until January 1, 2026, the fall budget will include the tax cuts. That makes the bill unnecessary, unless the government is trying to create more smoke and mirrors, a bit like it did with the King and annexation, for example. The $20 billion in revenue from retaliatory tariffs is also being dropped. No one knows much about the details. The $20-billion ballpark figure is fairly well known. That means another $30 billion will be added to Canada's deficit this year. That is quite significant. Justin Trudeau must be kicking himself for holding back; he could have done a lot worse.”
“How a sum that was not paid out can be reimbursed is hard for me to fathom, yet it put $4 billion in the pockets of Canadians. As I see it, Canada excluded Quebec. Quebeckers did not receive a cent because they have their own carbon pricing system. The rebate had nothing to do with the carbon tax, however. The ruse was not particularly honest. I would therefore remind Parliament that Canada owes the people of Quebec $800 million. That is a fact. Until it is paid, we will continue to speak out. The government had the nerve to tell Quebeckers that they made up that figure, that it had been proven to be false, and the government handed out cheques to buy votes, but not to them, because they are just Quebeckers. Then there are the $6 billion in tax cuts. A bill will be introduced to that effect, but it is useless.”
“(1640) In any case, our party is going to talk about them, because a model that strikes a balance between the economy and the environment has more wealth-generating potential in the long run than a model that costs more to repair than it makes in profits. Even the profits that are generated are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and spent on fancy yachts sailing the Mediterranean. This does nothing for taxpayers who constantly pay more for less. Still, we must find a way to co-operate. Canadians and Quebeckers wanted a Prime Minister with a background in banking to negotiate with the United States. As the process begins, questions have emerged. A tax that was not paid has cost $4 billion to reimburse. That is a new one.”
“He is certainly going to stickhandle this issue and force some people in this Parliament to see whether they still have an environmental conscience, especially the former environment and climate change minister. We have an oil and gas government that was elected on an oil and gas agenda because it told people that now was not the time to talk about the environment, the French language, immigration, values, seniors or anything else. It said that there was no time to talk about anything because we were in a crisis. The crisis seems to be over, judging from the Speech from the Throne. Now we will surely be able to talk about those things.”
“It seems logical to assume that the Prime Minister also believed in climate change when he was running Brookfield, because it was a green investment fund on paper. We eventually discovered that the green investment fund was actually a black investment fund, because it invests in oil and gas. There must be an explanation that we do not yet know and that we will find out as soon as we find out about the Prime Minister's personal assets. Did he think that way when he was running Brookfield, or was it a way to attract investors? Again, the Speech from the Throne does not have a lot to say about the climate and the environment. Our party tends to talk about it a lot. What is more, Repentigny just sent us the Wayne Gretzky of the environment.”
“The federal government will say that it has the money to force the provinces to surrender their areas of jurisdiction so that everything can be centralized under the federal government, which thinks it knows better than everyone else. On another note, climate change is real for the 22 Bloc Québécois members of Parliament. Yes, there is such a thing as climate change, which is destroying the environment at a highly accelerated rate, destroying lives and—we will repeat it time and again—costing every family thousands of dollars a year in insurance costs, higher grocery bills, and taxes to repair the damage. Trying to fight climate change costs much more than we could have ever imagined.”
“That is why I used the following image earlier: It is as though Canada were a bank with branches in Quebec City, Toronto, Edmonton and so on. It is as though Canada were a central bank with branches that take their orders from the head banker. I do not mean any offence by that, but this way of looking at things is upsetting to Quebeckers and Quebec MNAs. The federal government will say that it is the one with the money. Thanks to the good old fiscal imbalance, the federal government gets more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, and the provinces get less than they need to fulfill theirs, not to mention the fact that the provinces are afraid to raise taxes.”
“It is simply because it denies the distinctiveness of Quebec's language and values, as well as the immigration issues that are unique to Quebec. Our integration challenges are not the same. Obviously, this is true in terms of language, but it is becoming clearer every day that it is also true in terms of values. The great virtue of the Speech from the Throne is that it is unapologetic. We are told right from the start that, no matter what we say or do, this is the vision that will apply. That stems from ignorance—in the sense of a lack of knowledge, not an unwillingness to learn—about how the parliamentary system works, about the constraints of a legislative process that must ultimately yield power to elected officials and parliamentarians.”
“Every Canadian province has its own economic tools that work differently, have different effects and generate different amounts of money from different economic bases. The idea of one economy was unanimously rejected by all elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. Either the government has decided that it could not care less about what elected officials said, or it did not hear those elected officials say no. (1635) Earlier today, during question period, I heard questions that seemingly came from western Canada. I am not sure that they really agree either. I am not convinced that people in the west believe that there should only be one Canadian economy and that they should submit to it. The same centralizing approach to Canadian multiculturalism is not particularly popular with Quebeckers. Why?”
“The same reasoning applies to child care. Obviously, there is no increase in health transfers, because a province that is being strangled financially is a province that can be brought low and subjugated. The government is centralizing environmental issues because it wants to create a giant steamroller that will run a pipeline through Quebec based on Canadian environmental standards. It is ignoring the fact that Quebec has the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, which was created under a provincial law. A law cannot be circumvented. No one can decide to circumvent a law to please a friend. There is also this idea about one economy, one Canadian economy, naturally.”
“What happened to the crisis? There was a crisis going on. The widespread panic it caused was carefully stoked. It served a purpose, but then where did the crisis go? Was it resolved, as we were led to believe, by he who was already Prime Minister and who is now confirmed in the role? The whole reason he was seeking a mandate is absent from his own throne speech. What we find instead is an unprecedented degree of centralization, both in reality and in intent. In reality, when it comes to health care, the government is still trying to interfere in pharmacare and dental care, a jurisdiction that belongs to Quebec and the provinces. It seems that, in the thought process of a great economist, efficiency is achieved when a task is assigned to people who know nothing about it, which makes it take longer and cost more.”
“All the stops were pulled out during what I call the three big red weekends. I am referring to the Liberal leadership debate, the selection of the Liberal Party leader the following weekend, and the appointment of the Liberal ministers the weekend after that, followed by the election call. The next day, in the midst of a crisis, the Prime Minister himself told Radio-Canada, “No crisis, no Mark Carney”. I know I am not allowed to name him, but since it is a quote, I do not really have a choice. Yesterday, we laughed so hard it would have made Rock et Belles Oreilles look like undertakers. There was not a word in the throne speech about the tariff crisis, not a word about the trade crisis. Furthermore, some posh foreign sovereign came over making claims about Canadian sovereignty when he is actually the king of another people.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we left the House in December 2024, a number of people were printing out resumés. In January 2025, a crisis escalated with the United States on three fronts. It was a tariff crisis, which seemed likely but obviously temporary, since tariffs are an intimidation tactic, or a response to an intimidation tactic in the case of retaliatory tariffs. It was a trade crisis in anticipation of a new trade agreement, a free trade agreement that will be less free but will still be a trade agreement. It was also a crisis of fabrications, which we can now say was a joke from the start without being accused of not taking things seriously. It will never be anything more than a joke that was picked up and exploited to sow uncertainty for the benefit of the Liberal election campaign.”
“Mr. Speaker, that would feel like a military staff meeting where a general gives his orders and expects them to get done. On another topic, we believe that the climate crisis is real too. The climate crisis is causing damage, human and economic damage. We believe that action must be taken to fight the climate crisis. However, yesterday's Speech from the Throne suggests doing the exact opposite. It would ignore the climate and introduce measures that would worsen climate change and harm the environment. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that climate change is real?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that some things are clearer when we read them than when we hear them. We have time, but the speech given by the King was centralizing. It was so centralizing that even Justin Trudeau must have been embarrassed to be there. The government is talking about one economy without asking anyone's opinion, when the National Assembly has unanimously denounced such a notion. Should we be worried that the Prime Minister sees Canada as a country whose provinces are like branches of a bank with a head office in Toronto?”
“Mr. Speaker, what led the election to be called and formed the basis of the entire Liberal strategy was a trade crisis, a tariff crisis and an annexation crisis, even, featuring Donald Trump. However, in yesterday's Speech from the Throne, which was read by a foreign sovereign, there was no reference to trade or tariffs. That leads me to wonder what happened to make people forget the terrible crisis that got the Prime Minister elected.”
“I believe we need to get voters engaged again so that, in the future, they will vote for something they really want, motivated by enthusiasm and hope, and not so much by concern, apprehension or fear. I believe we have the potential to achieve this, because in the last few minutes, and to some extent in the last few weeks, I have had a chance to speak with a number of you. Even then, especially during my brief conversations with the Prime Minister and with Conservative colleagues, I sensed that we have it in us to change our tone and the way we collaborate. That seems to me like the only path forward to regaining the respect of the voters who selected the members of this Parliament. Above all, I hope that we can accomplish this work with good humour and enjoyment. Our work arises from an incredible privilege that you, Mr.”
“I would also like to extend my best wishes to the entire House in anticipation of what we hope will be serious work under the watchful eye of our new Speaker. I hope that this Parliament will take a more collaborative approach. That would be good for us, it would be good for all the members here in the House, and it is a highly responsible approach. I would like to ask all members, both new and old, to be the best colleagues they can be so that the Bloc Québécois will be compelled to be even better and be the best colleagues we can be. Of course, we will be focusing on our priorities in the coming days, and our colleagues know what those are. In particular, I want us all to reflect on the importance and privilege of democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, I cannot help but notice that I am speaking from a seat a little further back in the House. That means that, while we will still be just as courteous, we will have to speak even louder so that, when the time comes, we can show that numbers are not everything. On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Speaker and to thank the voters who participated in this democratic exercise, both in my riding of Beloeil—Chambly and across Quebec and Canada. I want to point out that the Prime Minister referred to Athenian institutions and that the Leader of the Opposition spoke a lot about the monarchy. I would have expected the opposite, but we will come back to that, perhaps tomorrow.”